Can Honda do better? (C6 Z06)

slightly off topic, but I would just say I probably wouldn't buy the new Z06. I def. agree more with those who say the car has to have certain intangibles, etc... The vette , although impressive performance, doesn't do it for me.

Hopefully they give the Honda a heart and soul. That will make or break the car more than 500HP in a lifeless vehicle
 
If Honda has the abbility?.... Absolutely.
Are they going to?, not very likely (imho)

If you do a search on this topic, you will find dozens of posts discussing the Z06, which is a great car for the money.
I was at the nurburgring yesterday, there was about 150 corvettes. Only 1 NSX, which was Dutch and Black :tongue:
 
Last edited:
Maxime said:
I love Honda and I love the NSX. but I doubt they could build a competitive car in that price segment.

What do you think?

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1172117&forum_id=100

Engine: 7.0L V8 (505hp)
Weight: 3147 lbs
0-60mph: 3.5s
1/4: 11.5 @ 127 mph
Braking 60-0: 104 ft
Lateral acceleration: 1.05g

All this for only 65 800$.

well, insofar as these numbers keep getting faster and higher every time I see them, I don't think Honda could match them. Cuz they keep changing. The car ain't even really OUT yet and already it's shaved .3s off of its 0-60 and added another .04g to the lateral. That's some AMAZING engineering. It gets better just sitting on paper.

But, seriously. The Z06 is not THAT impressive. It has a 7L engine. It makes a stellar 72hp/L. Wow! Boy, that's like what the old Legend Type II motor made. Could Honda make 72hp/L. Yeah, uh, I think so. Everyone can.

Spectacular performance from a car with an engine of that displacement is nothing extraordinary. In fact, muscle cars from the 1960s did it 40 years ago, albeit burning more gas in the process. A 427 is a really large-assed powerplant. Chrysler has motors developing that type of output, too. The Hemi is basically their LS.

I'd like to see a quasiturbine or other rotary-type plant. Or something hybrid of some kind. Barring that, it better make 125hp/L or else who really cares? Honda should be able to produce 500hp from 4L of displacement. Any car with that type of power is going to exhibit Z06-style performance numbers. But, it costs a lot more to produce 125hp/L than 72.

The LS8 or whatever needs the titanium because the rotating inertia of the pushrod-based drivetrain is excessive even at 7000rpm. They have to cut down to get the thing to reciprocate effectively at those RPMs.
 
HP/L isn't everything. Look at the Zonda. 7.3L V12, 550HP. Not impressive to you, but everyone in the automotive press thinks it is perhaps the best supercar on the market today.

I would rather have a car with more TQ vs smaller displacement just to so you are the king of HP/L.
 
liftshard said:
well, insofar as these numbers keep getting faster and higher every time I see them, I don't think Honda could match them. Cuz they keep changing. The car ain't even really OUT yet and already it's shaved .3s off of its 0-60 and added another .04g to the lateral. That's some AMAZING engineering. It gets better just sitting on paper.

But, seriously. The Z06 is not THAT impressive. It has a 7L engine. It makes a stellar 72hp/L. Wow! Boy, that's like what the old Legend Type II motor made. Could Honda make 72hp/L. Yeah, uh, I think so. Everyone can.

Spectacular performance from a car with an engine of that displacement is nothing extraordinary. In fact, muscle cars from the 1960s did it 40 years ago, albeit burning more gas in the process. A 427 is a really large-assed powerplant. Chrysler has motors developing that type of output, too. The Hemi is basically their LS.

I'd like to see a quasiturbine or other rotary-type plant. Or something hybrid of some kind. Barring that, it better make 125hp/L or else who really cares? Honda should be able to produce 500hp from 4L of displacement. Any car with that type of power is going to exhibit Z06-style performance numbers. But, it costs a lot more to produce 125hp/L than 72.

The LS8 or whatever needs the titanium because the rotating inertia of the pushrod-based drivetrain is excessive even at 7000rpm. They have to cut down to get the thing to reciprocate effectively at those RPMs.

I agree as well, HP/L isn't everything. Power is power. You get 500+hp for 65k and a car that can absolutly rip any car within 100K of its price range in terms of raw performance. Power is power, and in this case, its cheap power onnsidering its price tag. Who cares if you aren't making 125 HP/L. We dont want another Honda where you have to wait till 6k rpms for anything to happen..:rolleyes: The LS7 is a huge motor and it would be a waste if it were so huge yet it didn't perform..but it isnt..the damn thing makes gobs of torque

Nomie
 
NoMiEzVR4 said:
I agree as well, HP/L isn't everything. Power is power. You get 500+hp for 65k and a car that can absolutly rip any car within 100K of its price range in terms of raw performance. Power is power, and in this case, its cheap power onnsidering its price tag. Who cares if you aren't making 125 HP/L. We dont want another Honda where you have to wait till 6k rpms for anything to happen..:rolleyes: The LS7 is a huge motor and it would be a waste if it were so huge yet it didn't perform..but it isnt..the damn thing makes gobs of torque

Nomie


haha can i get a SL65 AMG engine in my nsx? :biggrin:

i think you mean anything within $200k of its price range there, that being said, is the interior different in the Z06 C6 than the normal C6, i sat in one and something seemed odd about the dash, is the Z06 a little more snazzy looking?
 
NoMiEzVR4 said:
I agree as well, HP/L isn't everything. Power is power. You get 500+hp for 65k and a car that can absolutly rip any car within 100K of its price range in terms of raw performance. Power is power, and in this case, its cheap power onnsidering its price tag. Who cares if you aren't making 125 HP/L. We dont want another Honda where you have to wait till 6k rpms for anything to happen..:rolleyes: The LS7 is a huge motor and it would be a waste if it were so huge yet it didn't perform..but it isnt..the damn thing makes gobs of torque
Nomie

Wait till 6k? Wha? A wider powerband enables you to hold a gear longer and develop more hp. I really don't value monstrous torque that much. Rate of acceleration is what matters. The car which holds 1st the longest wins.
 
The new Z06 is pretty darn impressive! Even with that huge 428 cubic inch engine, it still manages to be lighter than the NSX. Imagine if the NSX had twice the horsepower and torque? Now that would be lots of fun.

I give Chevy lots of credit for building a stellar performing sports car for a bargain price.
 
CerberusM5 said:
The new Z06 is pretty darn impressive! Even with that huge 428 cubic inch engine, it still manages to be lighter than the NSX. Imagine if the NSX had twice the horsepower and torque? Now that would be lots of fun.

I give Chevy lots of credit for building a stellar performing sports car for a bargain price.

I am not sure which NSX you are referring to, but 3147 is equal to or greater than the targa (mine only weighs 3010 with gasoline) and the coupe is ~100lbs lighter.

A very cool car. But how much would it cost if there was no C6 to amortize the R and D costs?
 
rickysals said:
slightly off topic, but I would just say I probably wouldn't buy the new Z06. I def. agree more with those who say the car has to have certain intangibles, etc... The vette , although impressive performance, doesn't do it for me.

Hopefully they give the Honda a heart and soul. That will make or break the car more than 500HP in a lifeless vehicle

Drugs are goooooooooooooood
 
Maxime said:
I love Honda and I love the NSX. but I doubt they could build a competitive car in that price segment.

What do you think?

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1172117&forum_id=100

Engine: 7.0L V8 (505hp)
Weight: 3147 lbs
0-60mph: 3.5s
1/4: 11.5 @ 127 mph
Braking 60-0: 104 ft
Lateral acceleration: 1.05g

All this for only 65 800$.

To each their own, I believe when you buy a car it should fit your tastes and needs.
I believe cars are like women, some guys like a women that has a big topend, even if that means that the rest of her is big also. comparable to some cars out there, they also eat alot of food or fuel, and are not very efficient, and dont handle very well. And their are men that like a Hi-performance top of the line sleek model type with nice lines, you know eye candy, and like compareable cars, they are high maintenance, not very dependable, and everyone is always staring, and would do anything to have her.
Im the kinda guy that likes a well rounded women, just like my the cars I drive, as long as I like the way she looks, she dont cost to much to maintain, and she is fun to go out with, that's perfect, in both ways :wink: thats the reason I love my NSX, Everytime I take my NSX out it doesnt cost me a arm and leg, I still get alot of looks, and she's easy to maintain, and is very dependable...Like I said to each their own..., kinda like that one joke...Fat chicks are like Mopeds, they are fun to ride, until your friends catch you on one!!!! :wink: :biggrin:
 
ncdogdoc said:
I am not sure which NSX you are referring to, but 3147 is equal to or greater than the targa (mine only weighs 3010 with gasoline) and the coupe is ~100lbs lighter.

A very cool car. But how much would it cost if there was no C6 to amortize the R and D costs?

I was referring to the current NSX-T, which according to the Acura website tips the scales at 3153 ponds with a 6-speed manual transmission.

Considering the Z06 has a 7.0 liter engine, massive brakes, 18x9.5/19x12 wheels with huge 275/325mm tires and similar weight as the NSX is an achievement in my book.
 
The Motor Trend article on the Z06 was the best I read out of the magazines. They talked about all the thing chevy did to achieve that weight target. They basically say it is not much of a daily driver at all, very loud and rough. I would not like the next NSX to have those qualities.
 
All of the following is from the '10 BEST HANDLING CARS IN THE WORLD' article in the May 1991 issue of Motor Trend magazine.

The cars tested and compared plus their score out of 100

[from last place to first]

10th Place - with 17 points - Pontiac Firebird Formula
9th Place - with 31 points - Lotus Elan
8th Place - with 39 points - Nissan NX 2000
7th Place - with 41 points - Mazda MX-5 Miata
6th Place - with 45 points - Corvette ZR-1
5th Place - with 50 points - Toyota MR2 Turbo
4th Place - with 65 points - Porsche 944 S2
3rd Place - with 84 points - Mitsubishi 3000GT V4-4
2nd Place - with 86 points - Nissan 3000ZX Turbo
1st Place - with 92 points - Acura NSX

Some selected quotes...

[REGARDING THE NSX]

"The Acura NSX demonstrated more grip than any other car tested - whether the surface was smooth or bumpy. It was a rocket on the road course [and] a master at braking while cornering."

"[the NSX] is remarkably precise and all controls work in perfect harmony."

"[the NSX's] ability to snake through the turns at speed borders on the incredible. Sheer mountain-road magnificence. The quicker you go - the better it feels."

"The Acura NSX is the best handling car in all the land."

[REGARDING THE CORVETTE ZR-1]

"Oh how the mighty have fallen. The Corvette ZR-1 finished in the bottom half of the field with less than half the points of the world's best handling car [the NSX] to its credit. Test track results show that the Corvette is a blunt instrument, not a tool of precision."

"A fun car on the racetrack - but heavy and sluggish feeling in real life. Clearly the Corvette engineers have some catching up to do."

[Acura NSX vs Corvette ZR-1]

"It gets noted that a few cars - a Corvette ZR-1 for example - will out accelerate the NSX, or sometimes turn in a faster lap time. Sure, but so what? We're talking about balance here, a level of balance as finely crafted as the heft and feel and polish and swift sureness of an ancient shogun's samurai sword. The NSX is in a whole other league and nothing else comes close. A ZR-1 to an NSX is like a WWII V-1 buzz-bomber to a cruise missile."
 
Honda vs. Zonda

Yes the NSX needs to be replaced, but that being said - here is an article from 3 years ago from a very good car mag - EVO - truely a testament to how "ahead of its time" the NSX was, and how good it still is....

From Evo Magazine "Car of the Year" article from the Jan, 2003 issue, about the Honda NSX-R.



'This is the rawest, most focussed NSX. The improved power to weight ratio is immediately obvious. The 0-60 time tumbles to 4.4sec and there's a newfound urgency to the power delivery. The howl as the V6 closes in on the red line is just intoxicating'
One more stop for fuel, then the final dash to the beach. I'm quite happy to stay in the Lotus, but then Dickie flashes the cool sliver of titanium that is the key to the NSX, and seconds later I'm wedging my once snakelike hips into its deep-sided race-style Recaros. No time to dwell on the details -- just get comfy, turn the key and go. But boy, what a fierce noise, and what a direct, mechanical-feeling gearchange, and whoa!what heavy steering, and I haven't even left the station forecourt yet.
It's very quickly clear that this is what Hilary Briss would call 'special stuff'. A regular NSX is a great thing, but this, as they say, is hardcore. You're suddenly very aware you've strapped yourself into a machine. The ride's stiff, the unassisted steering requires big inputs from the forearms, at least until you're up to speed, and the power delivery is inspirational. You just can't believe this is the same output as the Nissan, and the way it builds and builds while all the time the engine note swells, flattens and eventually lets rip with a full-blooded howl is quite intoxicating. All too soon we've reached the photo location, but I promise myself a real, long drive in the NSX tomorrow. I believe we have another serious contender.

Compromise, not a word that features in the NSX-R's job description. A quick glance at the spec sheet shows just how seriously Honda's engineers took this project. New vents and a rear diffuser help promote downforce. The weight loss programme included new carbon-fibre panels and spoilers, lighter wheels, and binning just about everything that didn't impact on the driving experience, including the stereo, the central locking and the underseal. The net result was to trim 140 kilos from the kerb weight, now 1270kg. Pretty significant when your horsepower is topped at 276bhp (though some Japanese horses feel friskier than others...).

To wring the most from the 3.2-litre quad-cam V6, the engineers opted for high-precision balancing of not only the pistons and conrods but also the crankshaft assembly, all the better to help it rev. There's a drive-by-wire throttle, and a lower final drive ratio, both designed to sharpen response. Chassis changes include stiffer springs and dampers, harder bushes, stiffer anti-roll bars, grooved and vented discs with a new pad specification, and bespoke asymmetric Bidgestone Potenzas, 215/40 front, 255/40 rear, on 17in BBS alloys.

Inside you get carbonfibre-bodied Recaros that clamp you in place yet still feel comfortable after an hour's driving, a smaller Momo wheel than the standard car's, and a tianium ball on the stubbiest gearstick you've ever seen, so small it only just pokes out of the nylon mesh gaiter. Guide it with precision and a firm hand, and it's one of the most rewarding shifts you've ever experienced.

Sort of sums up what the NSX-R is all about. It's not an easy car -- the suspension feels rigid at low speeds, the steering heavy -- but the faster you go, the more it flows and the more it communicates. There's a constant stream of messages coming through the wheel as the tyres turn, grip, slither, patter, grip again... Of all the cars here, only the Elise comes close. The same directness is there in the throttle response, and there's a real touch of savagery to the way the engine pulls now, getting an extra kick at 4000rpm and then sustaining the rush all the way to 8000rpm. By which time the V6's urgent voice has compressed from nape-prickling how to teeth-tingling blare. I have a terrific drive in late-afternoon. We're moving camp tonight, pitching up a the Groes Inn, near Conwy, and I chase the Elise all the way from Anglesey circuit down into Snowdonia. I would be feeling even better were it not for the fact that Vivian in the Cooper S is all over my natty carbonfibre wing. Obviously I will tell him that the Elise was holding me up.

As with the Lotus, the thrills in the NSX come not from sheer speed but from the two-way relationship between car and driver, and working at it. It's not the fastest car here -- though it feels a good chunk quicker than the standard NSX -- but no other is quite so alive with sensations.

Far and away the greatest driver's cars of 2002 are the C4S and the NSX-R. Many of us spent ages agonising over scoring the two cars, and in the end there was just 0.6 of a percentage point in it. Simple fact: the purest driver's car won.'The irony,' say Vivian, 'is that the NSX started life as the most contrived, compromised supercar -- for all the right reasons -- and it's been turned into the hardest, purest, most involving there is.'

Barker, like many of us, was initially suspicious of the ultra-stiff suspension, the tyres like hand-cut slicks and the heavy, apparently slow-acting steering, but like all of us he found that once up to speed, it all worked quite beautifully. 'Once you're into it, cracking along, there's a wonderful feedback and workable progression. It even works in the wet. Honda R&D have worked some magic here.' And the NSX's brakes are stupendous -- an absolute model of feel, progression and power. As Jethro puts it, the NSX-R is everything we look for in a car. 'It doesn't pamper you, doesn't do anything for you,' adds Fraser. 'It's a car you have to drive. And you get out what you put in, which can only be a good thing.''The noise,' says Meaden, 'is a no-nonsense, busy kind of sound -- how a racecar sounds if you drive one around the paddock without your crash helmet on. The gearshift is similarly hard-edged, that palm-filling allow knob nibbles its way around the gate with an instinctive, wristy precision. And then you drive it, and the whole thing feels so at one, so absorbing you just want to keep going until you meet the horizon. It feels fast too, not bruisingly rapid in the Maranello or SL55 sense -- it's too lithe and efficient to need such unsettling thump -- but aggressive, needle-sharp and just as quick as it needs to be.'

The ride is terrible over short sharp bumps: rumble strips jiggle bits of you which you'd rather they didn't. But the last word goes to Hayman, who drove it up to Wales: 'I shouldn't really like the NSX,' he says. 'I sat in it for six hours on my way up here -- including motorways, traffic jams, no sound deadening and no radio. It was intense but it was, and is, utterly superb. Anyone who's still not sure what we're talking about when we bang on about evoness should just drive this car.'

It is the only supercar that could look remotely cool in white. It is this year's blockbuster, the Lord of the Wings. And best news of all, it looks likely that Honda will bring a limited number to the UK in 2003. So now you know what we'd all like next Christmas.

THE RESULTS
1st Honda NSX-R93.5
2nd Porsche 911 C4S92.9
3rd Ferrari 575M 'Fiorano'88.6
4th Mercedes SL55 AMG86.9
5th Lotus Elise 111S85.1
6th Mini Cooper S84.9
7th Mitsubishi Evo VII FQ-30082.7
8th Nissan 350Z81.8
9th Renault Sport Clio Cup81.3
10th Jaguar XKR-R79.7
11th Subaru Impreza STi PPP78.4
12th Ford Focus RS76.0

Track Attack!
All of which leaves the NSX-R and C4S. The Porsche's balance, traction and poise are sublime (although it can understeer in the wet), the brakes firm and tireless. For such a well-judged, road-biased car it makes a great track car. But even the C4S bows to the NSX-R, as Barker explains. 'Even in the wet you can work the NSX-R hard. The front scrubs wide first, as it should, and if you then squeeze a bit more power in, the tail arcs out gently, and is easily caught and gathered up again. You don't expect this sort of poise with such a stiff, mid-engined car on such dry-weather-biased rubber. In the dry, it's simply stunning. It's so easy to drive it over the limit yet feel you're not over-driving it. There's so much grip, so much progression, so little feeling that there's a weighty mid-mounted engine trying to dictate proceedings. You rarely want for any more power, a sure sign that it's a superbly well-judged dynamic package.'

Honda v Zonda
Fabulous the NSX-R may be, but how would it compare with last year's eCOTY winner, the Pagani Zonda C12S? Let's find out

Heads swivel so fast as our two-car convoy rumbles by that I'm sure if we retraced the route we'd find a dozen or so people clutching their necks. And that young lad at the last T-junction would surely be brushing gravel from his dropped jaw. This is the one and only Honda NSX-R in the UK, which makes it rarer than the Pagani Zonda C12S it's pursuing, but there's no question that the epicentre of the shockwave is the Zonda. A couple of weeks earlier few people apart from you, dear evoreader would have been able to positively identify the dramatic silver wedge snuffling along these Northamptonshire roads, but the rest of the world is catching on. An appearance on Top Gear TV, with Jezza clearly wowed by its ability, has put the name of last year's evoCar of the Year on the lips of a much broader audience. 'Zonda' will now be on many more lottery wish lists, though at £300,000 it'll be on considerably fewer shopping lists. At £64,000, the NSX-R is hardly a snip, but for a fifth of the price of the Pagani it offers the same thing -- one of the most incrdible mid-engined -- driving experiences in the world. Which is why we felt compelled to bring these two eCOTY champions together, drive them back-to-back, and find out which of them offers the most evoness.
The Zonda won't be five times better than the Honda, of course, in just the same way that the Honda isn't three times better than, say, an MR2. It's the law of diminishing returns. Beyond a certain price the tangible improvement in sound quality of a hi-fi is no longer proportional to the amount you pay, though the quality of the engineering that goes into it, the sound that comes out, the volume it can achieve, and its exclusiveness, do increase.

On paper, the Zonda is twice the car the Honda is -- double the number of cylinders, exactly double the horsepower and twice the power-to-weight ratio. The latter is a clue to where some of the money has been spent, for the Zonda's 1270kg kerb weight is virtually identical to that of the largely aluminium-built and physically smaller Honda's. Carbonfibre is the key and, although it isn't cheap, when it's used extensively the benefits are spectacular. And nosing around the Zonda's nooks and crannies reveals that the finish everywhere is to the same fabulous standard.
The NSX-R offers stunning performance -- 0-60 in around 4.4sec, almost 170mph flat-out -- but the Zonda is on another plane, hitting the benchmark in well under four seconds and topping 200mph. Still, on the road there's only so much performance you can use. That's why the NSX-R is looming large in my mirrors as I thread the Zonda along the bumpy, twisty B-roads close to evoHQ. It feels very broad of beam, quite heavy too, yet whatever the revs, in the lower gears the response from the 7-litre Merc V12 is instant and massive. If you press hard, it's savage. When the shortest of straights opens up, the Zonda is gone, slammed forward with a frankly terrifying force and a guttural howl that's seething with malicious intent. Don't ever wind down the windows and fire the Zonda into a tunnel hard in second gear (like I did) -- the noise will scare you silly. Traction control is a recent addition to the standard spec of the Zonda, and at times it's pretty busy on these roads. It would be even busier if the ride was as uncompromisingly stiff as the NSX-R's but the Zonda's suppleness is one of the first things you notice. It doesn't come at the expense of superb wheel control and sharp, feelsome steering, which must be a reflection of the solidity of the carbon platform. Not surprisingly, the cockpit of the Honda looks pretty ordinary straight after the riot of shapes and materials under the Zonda's fighter jet-style canopy roof. The NSX-R feels great, though; the seats are among the best of any road car I've tried and the gearshift unequivocally the best of any mid-engined I've ever driven. Once you're up to speed, it's steering is outstanding, too, as are the brakes. In short, wherever car and driver interface, the NSX is inspired. Except for the ride, which around town is as resilient as the Zonda's is compliant, but town is the last place you'd go if you owned an NSX-R.

Even after the C12S the Honda feels exciting, which is quite an achievement. Of course it's not as sensationally accelerative but the whole car has a balance, a cohesion that makes it a totally absorbing and thrilling drive. Because it's smaller and feels lighter, you can use more of its ability more of the time, and as we descovered on eCOTY, it's sensational on a track. The Zonda's handy but not as joyously exploitable on a circuit. For sheer usable evoness, the Honda wins.

But if you should win the Lottery, there's no reason why you should feel the need to justify having both a C12S and an NSX-R in your garage. They are, after all, the finest mid-engined cars in production.
Caption: Zonda meets Honda; 555bhp 7.3-litre V12 plays 276bhp 3.2-litre V6. On paper it's an unequal contest, but on the road they're closer than you'd think. Both cars provide moments of total exhilleration.
 
liftshard said:
well, insofar as these numbers keep getting faster and higher every time I see them, I don't think Honda could match them. Cuz they keep changing. The car ain't even really OUT yet and already it's shaved .3s off of its 0-60 and added another .04g to the lateral. That's some AMAZING engineering. It gets better just sitting on paper.

But, seriously. The Z06 is not THAT impressive. It has a 7L engine. It makes a stellar 72hp/L. Wow! Boy, that's like what the old Legend Type II motor made. Could Honda make 72hp/L. Yeah, uh, I think so. Everyone can.

Spectacular performance from a car with an engine of that displacement is nothing extraordinary. In fact, muscle cars from the 1960s did it 40 years ago, albeit burning more gas in the process. A 427 is a really large-assed powerplant. Chrysler has motors developing that type of output, too. The Hemi is basically their LS.

I'd like to see a quasiturbine or other rotary-type plant. Or something hybrid of some kind. Barring that, it better make 125hp/L or else who really cares? Honda should be able to produce 500hp from 4L of displacement. Any car with that type of power is going to exhibit Z06-style performance numbers. But, it costs a lot more to produce 125hp/L than 72.

The LS8 or whatever needs the titanium because the rotating inertia of the pushrod-based drivetrain is excessive even at 7000rpm. They have to cut down to get the thing to reciprocate effectively at those RPMs.

Isn’t power to weight the major consideration?
Why do people want more hp per liter?
I want less hp per liter.
Let me try to be clear about why. Providing the engine has a profile and size to allow for good aerodynamics and placement for c of g then we only have three variables. 1. the weight of the car 2. the power output and 3. the cubic capacity of the engine. So let’s imagine you walk into a Honda showroom and the guy says “You are our millionth customer to walk through the door and you just won a sports car. You have two to chose from.”
He shows you two cars and they are identical in every way. They both weigh exactly 1000 kg and they both have exactly 900 hp (why not seeing as we are dreaming here) The only difference is that one has a 1000cc engine and the other is a 10 liter engine. Which one would you drive home? I would take the one with the big engine because it will tend to have more torque and the engine is less stressed so it will last longer.

Regards,

Patrick

ps the new Vete is dry sumped. Got to love that!
 
SugrueNSX said:
...........................................................................................................They both weigh exactly 1000 kg and they both have exactly 900 hp (why not seeing as we are dreaming here) The only difference is that one has a 1000cc engine and the other is a 10 liter engine. Which one would you drive home? I would take the one with the big engine because it will tend to have more torque and the engine is less stressed so it will last longer................................................................................................ps: the new Vete is dry sumped. Got to love that!

Except that the 1 liter has less reciprocating mass meaning it accelerates more quickly, and of course without some sort of change to Newton's laws, you will never have a 1liter and 10liter of the same mass or size.

BTW, it is the Z06 that is dry sump, which is available for the NSX also.
 
ncdogdoc said:
Except that the 1 liter has less reciprocating mass meaning it accelerates more quickly, and of course without some sort of change to Newton's laws, you will never have a 1liter and 10liter of the same mass or size.

BTW, it is the Z06 that is dry sump, which is available for the NSX also.


Very good points, so even power to weight and lateral g and braking stats do not tell the whole story. So the best measurement of performance is perhaps lap times? Then all that is left is handling which is a little subjective.
Yes I meant the Z06 when I mentioned the dry sump. Come on there is a big difference between comes as stock from the factory and “is available for”. Almost everything is available for any car.


Regards,

Patrick
 
In regard to the original post...yeah, I believe Honda can and will make something better. At the very least there'll be an equivalent.

I remember the ZR-1 when it came out and what an awesome car it was. Honda matched the performance of that performance model Corvette with a regular model NSX.
 
SugrueNSX said:
Isn’t power to weight the major consideration?
Why do people want more hp per liter?

Because it's a measure of the all-out engineering prowess of a powerplant. The ability to make high power from smaller, NA engines is the benchmark achievement for engineers.

I want less hp per liter.
Let me try to be clear about why. Providing the engine has a profile and size to allow for good aerodynamics and placement for c of g then we only have three variables. 1. the weight of the car 2. the power output and 3. the cubic capacity of the engine. So let’s imagine you walk into a Honda showroom and the guy says “You are our millionth customer to walk through the door and you just won a sports car. You have two to chose from.”
He shows you two cars and they are identical in every way. They both weigh exactly 1000 kg and they both have exactly 900 hp (why not seeing as we are dreaming here) The only difference is that one has a 1000cc engine and the other is a 10 liter engine. Which one would you drive home? I would take the one with the big engine because it will tend to have more torque and the engine is less stressed so it will last longer.

Yes it's very fun when we can make up absurd hypotheticals to prove our own points, isn't it?

Let's discuss real life instead. You can have a 7L engine at 500hp or a 5L one at the same output. The 5L engine will be in a Ferrari and the 7L in a Corvette. It's because it costs a lot more and is a higher exhibition of engineering and design to make the 5L than the 7L.

As for your absurd hypothetical...I'd take the 1L. It'd be some kind of quasiturbine powerplant at that output and it'd outlast a reciprocating engine by a million miles. True turbine engines go forever. And, they produce godawfully frightening horsepower from relatively small packages. It's because they SPIN. That's what engines do, they spin. And, as they spin, they push. How hard they push is their torque rating. How frequently they can give that push is how much power they make. A 1L engine developing 900hp would be an engineering marvel. A 10L engine would be ordinary. Each car would be about the same speed through the 1/4, 0-60, etc. That's because of gearing normalizing the WHEEL torque.

Now, let's talk about balance. Let's take the RX8. It has a 1.3L little rotary. Without emissions rules, that plant could make 300hp. The engine is so small that Mazda did a 50/50 midengine without needing to do much design at all. They can put 4 real seats in the freakin thing. 4 doors. Big wheels and tires and that car GRIPS. Trust me on it if you haven't driven one. Everyone should go drive an RX8 and see why it beats 350Zs and whatnot in comparos. Same as why the s2000 consistently won against Boxsters and MZ3s and the like. With similar HP, the lighter-engined car wins because of inherently far superior balance.

The RX has a tiny, light engine directly inline with the driveshaft. No joints, no parts, nuthin. Just a lightweight prop shaft going to the rears.

Compare THAT to, for example, the series II 3800 from GM w/ the SC. Or, maybe Honda's 3L 240hp J30. You cannot DO things with the large engine that you can w/ the small one. Simply couldn't fit the same car around even Honda's J30 as you can around the Renesis - at the same hp rating.

The RX8 compared to cars in that class, drives like magic. No sh!t, it really does. The car is an absolutely exceptional handler, world class. It's akin to comparing the NSX to Corvettes or other cars with lots of TQ but lacking precision. The reason the NSX can do what it does and the RX8 and even the s2000? The reason? HIGH specific output. They can put smaller, lighter engines into the same chassis in better positions. Each of the 3 I just mentioned is "mid" engined b/c of the relatively dimunitive size of the motor.

C'mon, man, it's why Ferraris drive better than Vipers.
 
MAJOR STONER said:
All of the following is from the '10 BEST HANDLING CARS IN THE WORLD' article in the May 1991 issue of Motor Trend magazine.

The cars tested and compared plus their score out of 100

[from last place to first]

10th Place - with 17 points - Pontiac Firebird Formula
9th Place - with 31 points - Lotus Elan
8th Place - with 39 points - Nissan NX 2000
7th Place - with 41 points - Mazda MX-5 Miata
6th Place - with 45 points - Corvette ZR-1
5th Place - with 50 points - Toyota MR2 Turbo
4th Place - with 65 points - Porsche 944 S2
3rd Place - with 84 points - Mitsubishi 3000GT V4-4
2nd Place - with 86 points - Nissan 3000ZX Turbo
1st Place - with 92 points - Acura NSX

What is the relevance of a comparison test performed over 14 years ago? :confused:
 
Many of my fellow officers make fun of my NSX saying that it is "a flashy Honda Accord". They tell me to go out and buy a "real car" such as a Mustang Cobra or the Chevy Corvette (these are also the same officers that give alot of tickets and get on my last damned nerves sometimes).

Well, last week, one of these officers gave me a magazine to read saying "you gotta give American muscle respect now". It was an article about the new ZO6 getting what seemed to be the best lap time at the famous Nurbergring (excuse my spelling) track. I read the comparos with other famous race and production cars. The ZO6 was, flat out, showing some very impressive numbers all while on street tires, not slicks. Hell, I was so impressed I almost convinced myself of buying one a few years from now when the inevitable depreciation kicks in, allowing me to afford one of my own.

As I pondered this, reading on about the impressive performance of the new ZO6, the officer (who happens to drive a brand new Pontiac GTO :rolleyes:) says, "So why don't you trade in your NSX to put down on a brand new ZO6?"
I actually thought about it. Then decided I didn't want to get back into car payments.

Later, I was parked having just finished talking to a recent domestic violence victim that wanted to say hello, when a '04 Black on Black NSX pulls up. The driver seemed to not want anything to do with me when I asked the year of the vehicle (maybe it was the badge). Then, when I mentioned I too was an NSX owner, he gave me a toothy grin and we began talking about our love for the car.

At that moment, I realized, there is absolutely no way I would trade in my beloved NSX for a ZO6. Even if I could afford to buy a brand new ZO6, I would likely use the money towards a new (like new) NSX and tweak her just right for good track performance.

That being said, I have to say in response to some previous posts, yes....Honda is very capable of producing a car like the ZO6. However, they are not likely going to do it IMHO. Because certain people here complain that they want a luxury exotic car. I personally want a race car, that is what an exotic car is all about to me. My car is stiff, loud, and not practical for everyday use; but, I love her that way. Practical is what I get from my other car. But Honda will likely cater to all that want luxury more than to others like me, who want performance.

Also, all this talk about a car having "soul" or "heart", sounds alot like a snobby Ferrari owner posting about the NSX. Let's face it, Chevy has come out with one hell of a super car. We can pull out articles about how great the NSX is compared to other cars; however, I don't see the NSX with lap times up there with the ZO6's (I mean the NEW ZO6). Granted this is just one track. But, are you going to tell me that the new ZO6 will not best the current NSX in any other track?

Look, this isn't like me, I was having a similar conversation with a friend when he put up his hands, looked me in the eye and said, "Who are you?! and what have you done with the Real Blade?!"

Look, the original question here is: Can Honda produce a car that can beat or compete with Chevy's new ZO6...?

I believe they can, but I don't think they will. In My Opinion, they should. Build an NSX replacement for the luxury buffs that want a fast car; however, offer a Type-R version here in the states that will spank or compete well with the new ZO6 and you will make many a Honda lover very very happy. Even if they can't afford it, just to know it exists.

On a side note, someone posted a statement from an EVO magazine about the NSX Type-R doing a 0-60 time of 4.4 seconds. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Type-R NSX just a fine tuned suspension and lighter bodied NSX? Isn't the engine essentially the same? I don't know very much about the Type-R since it isn't offered here in the states, a pity.

Nonetheless, whatever Honda unleashes as the NSX successor, it will most certainly leave it's mark. Hell, it may even blow the ZO6 away or give it a run for it's money, while still satisfying those that want luxury, heart and soul from an exotic. It does sound very Honda like now doesn't it :wink:
 
Back
Top